Nature-based interventions are better than technology-based solutions to reduce emissions from livestock production, according to a report by the FAIRR Initiative.
The report, Climate and Nature-based Interventions in Livestock, has been produced in collaboration with the Climate Policy Initiative and Vibrant Data Labs, assessing 22 solutions to could help to mitigate climate and nature risks from intensive livestock production. Of these solutions, 12 were nature-based and 10 technology-based.
The report scored these interventions against the Stockholm Resilience Centre planetary boundaries framework and tracked how much private and public capital each solution receives. It found that nature-based solutions had a greater positive impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and removals, biodiversity, freshwater use, chemical inputs and the flow of nutrients across ecosystems than tech-based solutions.
Nature-based solutions include biobased fertilisers, crop rotations, grazing optimisation, hedgerows, silvopasture and tree intercropping. FAIRR found these ‘market-ready’ solutions could produce a net return on investment within five years and show no evidence of significant negative trade-offs.
However, the report suggested seven out of 10 tech-based solutions “show evidence of negative trade-offs” against factors such as large-scale anaerobic digesters for animal waste, synthetic animal feed additives, GHG-focused livestock breeding and genetic selection. Technology-based solutions include animal health and performance management, farm irrigation efficiency and improved livestock infrastructure.
This comes as only 45% – approximately $127m – of overall climate-focused annual public funding for these interventions flows towards nature-based solutions. This is “concerning”, FAIRR said, because, while all 12 nature-based interventions positively impacted five out of seven boundaries – such as GHG-focused livestock breeding – the technology-based solutions only positively impacted three.
Jeremy Coller, chair and founder of FAIRR, said: “We are feeding 80 billion animals a year for eight billion humans. The harms of intensive animal agriculture to people, planet and portfolios are too great to be ignored in the net-zero and nature transition.
“Climate change is a significant accelerating risk, but with business-as-usual intensive livestock production posing a systemic risk to investor portfolios across seven planetary boundaries – investments in decarbonisation must be taken with an eye on the bigger picture.”
The report also looked at the overall funding flows to livestock reduction emission solutions. It found that while livestock production is responsible for nearly 20% of global GHG emissions, the 22 interventions assessed receive just 0.1% ($285m) of climate-related public finance globally.
However, the report stressed the profit potential of both solutions, and called on investors to integrate nature-based solutions in their investment decision making.
Sajeev Mohankumar, report author and senior technical specialist, climate and biodiversity at FAIRR, added: “While tech-based interventions are generally less risky to implement and can deliver immediate climate benefits, reliance on these creates a lock-in with intensive livestock production practices.
“This will delay our ability to meet long-term climate and nature targets. Nature-based interventions alone can deliver 37% of the mitigation required to meet 2030 climate targets, along with significant benefits to nature.”
